of the story are a striking reflection of shared cultural motifs, rather than
being historical echoes of actual events.^2
Argead Macedonia and Odrysian Thrace emerged as neighbouring
kingdoms in the second and third quarters of thefifth centurybc, with
parallel ruling dynasties, drawing on a range of capable immediate and
more remote followers, whose exact identities are not easy to reconstruct.
Both dynasties are associated with major public works at this time,
including road building, the fostering of civic foundations, and even
civic relocation in the case of Olynthos by Perdikkas II (Thuc. 1.58.2).^3
The Argeads were in early times associated with Aigeai, identified with
Vergina, but at the turn of thefifth century Pella became the capital city
of Macedonia, probably as a result of natural as well as planned reloca-
tion, and retained this status until the defeat of Perseus. In contrast, the
Odrysian kings are not associated with any one specific centre, and
Theopompos described the royal Odrysian court as an itinerant body
(FGrH115 F31), with the king conducting administration and dispens-
ing justice at serial locations, as did many early modern rulers.^4 The
social communities within territorial kingdoms such as Argead Macedon
and Odrysian Thrace developed in rather different ways from the com-
paratively nucleated civic communities of mainland Greece and the
islands, but have features in common with areas such as Thessaly,
where regional administration emerged in concert with, but additional
to, civic traditions.
Even this brief sketch is sufficient to show that the political narrative,
such as our principal voices relate, conceals as much as it reveals. We
want to know much more about the ways in which named communities
developed and negotiated their resources with these new territorial
hierarchies. We want to know how and why kingship was the mechan-
ism that successfully united the heterogeneous communities within this
region and what kinds of economic relationships made this mechanism
work. The political narrative does not help to explain how material
(^2) On the history of early Macedonia: Zahrnt 1984, 325–68; Sprawski 2010, esp. 131–4;
Mari 2011a; Hatzopoulos (2003) accepts the‘historicity’of this passage, with some qualifi-
cations and repeats these ideas in Lane Fox 2011, 47; other scholars prefer to see in this story
a more complex combination of tradition and renewal: Baragwanath 2008, 150 and n.81,
discussing comparative examples; Greenwalt (1985);idem1994; Sprawski 2010, 127–31;
see further Ch. 5, for regional geography and ethnography.
(^3) Road building: Thuc. 2.98.1 (Odrysian king Sitalkes); 2.100.1 (Archelaos of Macedon);
cf. Thuc. 2.97.3–5 on Sitalkes’fiscal policies; Archibald 2000, 229–32; on the territorial
definition of the early kingdom of Macedonia:HMII, 61–2; 65; Hatzopoulos 1996, 167–79;
see further Ch. 4.
(^4) Archibald 1998, 216.
Herdsmen with golden leaves—narratives and spaces 39